Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beezoboy]

I am thinking about a pair of the actives for a second pair of monitors. Could anyone give me an opinion on these. Not compared to say B&W's, but maybe compared to somethinbg like a tannoy reveal or event 20/20. I know these things aren't the best, but like I said it is just a second pair of speakers for MIXING.

Thanks,
Beezoboy

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I haven't tried the actives, but I have a set of Diamond 8.2's and they're just amazing.  For the price, they're off the charts.  I'd give a dollar if they were shielded like the new ones...  You might find them a little "sweet" for mixing, but I've used them as a mix set also with good results.  It just takes some getting used to.

They currently reside as a "B" set next to my B&W M802's and they hold their own.  They really held their own next to a set of B&W 602's, which IMO, is a pretty big feat for such a small box.  

Again, no idea on the actives - I have a tendecy to lean towards passives of the same make/model if you put them next to each other.  However, if the actives sound HALF as good as the passives, they're easily worth TWICE what they're asking for them.

YMMV.  

[Eliott James]

Why are these monitors so inexpensive? I've never heard them but have seen the actives advertised for less than $350 a pair. How do they compare with the Precision 8s or Mackie 824's in sound quality?

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Monitors are such a subjective thing...  However, if you get a chance to hear them, do it.  They've (the Diamond series, specifically) been racking up 5-star ratings in the U.K. for years.  

Keep in mind that these are Hi-Fi loudspeakers - Although I've mixed through them, and prefer mixing through them as opposed to the Mack's, or most speakers for that matter (I used to bring them along to every studio I went to for tracking or mixing), they probably aren't everyone's cup of tea.  However, if you're looking for "real-world" speakers with great imaging, you've got to try them.

And again, no idea on the active series.  I can only assume that they sound different with all that mass in the cabinet.  However they (Wharfedale contacted me directly on this), tell me that they're pretty faithful to sound of the original Diamonds.

[barefoot]

EJ wrote on Tue, 29 June 2004 20:02

Why are these monitors so inexpensive?

Probably because they are made in China with the cheapest parts and materials possible?  

To get the price that low you really need to cut corners in every way imaginable.  In the drivers you use stamped frames, cheap glues, weak magnets, low permeability steel, and wide manufacturing tolerances.   In the cabinets you use thin, low-density particle board with no internal bracing to lower manufacturing and shipping costs.  Circuit components add up quickly, so you cut their costs to the bare minimum.  You use switching power supplies and amps with minimal filtering.   Individual components like electrolytic capacitors are designed with lifetimes just exceeding the warrantee period.   The only real care taken in design or manufacture goes into the external appearance of the product.  

Ever notice how many threads you see on these forums saying "my monitors died"?  That's because everyone wants a rack full of knobs and a closet full of microphones, but they feel like they're getting their teeth drilled when it come to dropping cash on the things that actually allow them to HEAR their music. Never mind accuracy, most budget monitors are just dealing with the hurdle of surviving for more than a year.  

Thomas

[grock5]

barefoot wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 11:56

Probably because they are made in China with the cheapest parts and materials possible?

That'll do it!

[digitalelfman]

I am seriously thinking about buying a set of the active 8.2's.  I am concerned about why they are so cheap as well, but found this to be interesting.

 http://www.hificorner.co.uk/news/soapbox/wharfedalevisit.htm

Anyone else with experience with these?

[Techne]

Here's a link to a shootout between the Wharfdales, B&W DM303's, Dynaudio actives and KRKs.  I normally don't read too much into these types of reviews because of the subjectivity and subliminal product endorsement from whomever is conducting the experiment, but this one seemed to have some good info.  Incidentally, I have the DM303's and like them alot.  

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jun02/articles/monitors.asp

Oh, and Barefoot, i don't agree that everyone is droping loads of cash on expensive processors and knob-laden doodads while neglecting the monitoring chain completely. There are plenty of people who think that the speakers are the most important part of the chain, and their gear lists will represent this.  

:Edit:
This link will bring you to the second half of the above article, i forgot to add it earlier.  
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jul02/articles/monitors2.asp

[bblackwood]

barefoot wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 10:56

That's because everyone wants a rack full of knobs and a closet full of microphones, but they feel like they're getting their teeth drilled when it come to dropping cash on the things that actually allow them to HEAR their music. Never mind accuracy, most budget monitors are just dealing with the hurdle of surviving for more than a year.

Hey, I'm all for generalities, but among mastering engineers I don't think this is the case. Heck between here and GS alone it seems like most everyone has spent a good bit of dough on their monitors.

You may have this perception because while most every engineer may want/need several compressors, EQs, etc, only one set of monitors is needed and generally, once purchased, not discussed...

[barefoot]

Techne wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 07:42

Oh, and Barefoot, i don't agree that everyone is droping loads of cash on expensive processors and knob-laden doodads while neglecting the monitoring chain completely. There are plenty of people who think that the speakers are the most important part of the chain, and their gear lists will represent this.

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 08:04

Hey, I'm all for generalities, but among mastering engineers I don't think this is the case. Heck between here and GS alone it seems like most everyone has spent a good bit of dough on their monitors. You may have this perception because while most every engineer may want/need several compressors, EQs, etc, only one set of monitors is needed and generally, once purchased, not discussed...

I agree that mastering is a slightly different story.  Monitors are definitely much higher on the priority list of ME's. I also understand that you don't need 10 monitors.   But when you consider recording studios in general, and both the attention and budget they allocate, monitors seem to be very low on the priority list.   When I first started my business I did a fairly extensive online survey of studios big and small.  I can't tell you how often I saw gear lists full of names like Neve, SSL, Neumann, Manley, Crane Song,........ only to be followed by Mackie HR824  or  NS10M.   I realized then that this business would truly be a labor of love.

[Bob Olhsson]

barefoot wrote on Sat, 31 July 2004 12:57

...when you consider recording studios in general, and both the attention and budget they allocate, monitors seem to be very low on the priority list...

Not for very many successful studios!

[bblackwood]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 01 August 2004 01:17

barefoot wrote on Sat, 31 July 2004 12:57 ...when you consider recording studios in general, and both the attention and budget they allocate, monitors seem to be very low on the priority list... Not for very many successful studios!

Seconded. Most serious rooms I've ever seen have many, many thousands tied up in the monitoring. Sure, they have NS-10s, but there's usually serious mains (Quested, Genelc, ATC, Dynaudio, Augspurger, etc) in the room as well...

[TotalSonic]

I'm going to disagree with the consensus here.  A TON of albums have been mixed using cheap nearfields - especially the ubiquitous NS-10Ms - with very good translation as an end result.  Sure - larger studios have high end mains - but from direct experience - they're not turned on until "impress the client" time comes around. I'd say Neal Pogue's work (i.e. Outkast, etc) is an excellent example of this - he mixed primarily to NS-10s sometimes bouncing to even smaller and cheaper Fostex's to get more of a sense of his boombox/car-radio target audience.  Unlike mastering - where obviously I agree that having the most accurate full range monitors is the most critical element - I think it's ridiculous to think you need ultra-high end mains in order to make good tracking decisions.  This isn't to say that I don't think it's not a good idea to have  excellent mains as an option in a tracking studio - I'm just saying that too much is being made here of the seeming absurdity of going from a U-47 to a Neve 1073 only to listen on cheap nearfields.

I actually like NS-10's! - I bounce to them from the RS4.5s at work once in a while to hear how the low end will translate onto consumer systems that don't reproduce above 80Hz either - and I mix with a pair coupled with a Hafler subwoofer for weekend work at my own personal project studio.
NS-10Ms are brittle, ugly, don't produce much over 80Hz, have eccentric bumps in the upper mids, - yes, are essentially wrong - but considering I've been listening to mixes on them for 15 years and they're available in nearly every single studio - I know their responses intimately - as do many other engineers that are producing decent work using them.  The same could be said more and more for the Mackie HR824 which seem to have started to become more of a tracking studio "regular."  obviously - OMMV.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bob Olhsson]

TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 01 August 2004 11:28

... I think it's ridiculous to think you need ultra-high end mains in order to make good tracking decisions.

My experience has been that it can make all the difference in the world. The decline in the use of truly good monitors is a whole lot of why a lot of older records sounded better than most contemporary stuff does. Gear pimps try to tell people it was all tubes and transformers but I think an awful lot of it was about having some great mains available. Especially for making tracking decisions.

[TotalSonic]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 01 August 2004 20:14

My experience has been that it can make all the difference in the world. The decline in the use of truly good monitors is a whole lot of why a lot of older records sounded better than most contemporary stuff does. Gear pimps try to tell people it was all tubes and transformers but I think an awful lot of it was about having some great mains available. Especially for making tracking decisions.

Bob -
I think the lower quality that you are hearing is the result of a lower average of experience in tracking engineers than "back in the day" and the fact that a lot of work is done in project studios with bad sounding rooms and questionable elements in the signal paths, combined with abuses of current digital technologies such as brickwall peak limiters.

The list of good sounding records from the past 30 years that have been mixed primarily using under $1500/pair of nearfields would extend for pages.

Again don't misunderstand me - if someone can afford Dynaudio or Meyer  or Quested instead of Reveals or Mackies - then by all means I think they should lay out the cash.  It's just to make a blanket statement regarding what tools someone can achieve great results on seems narrow sighted - especially considering the history of releases that backs this idea up.

Best regards,
Steve Berson